Where is Kate Middleton, Princess of Wales?

Just a blink impression of the painting, and I'm being quite subjective here. But the painting looks like King Charles is almost being engulfed in flames, or because of the amorphous nature of the background, his body is dissolving into it and his head is disconnected from the rest of him. A disembodied head of 'state' - the irony! A king is supposed to represent a higher order - or just order in general -as the leader of the nation. Instead, It's chaotic, messy and unsettling. If Trump had that portrait painted of him, we all know what he would have said to the artist.

 
Vulcan59 said:
An article about the portrait by Waterford Whispers News. (Satire)

www.sott.net

"I used the blood spilled by British Empire to get the reds" Charles portraitist explains

UNVEILING a portrait of Britain's King Charles which is set to fuel the nightmares of millions of people around the world, the artist behind the poor imitation of the painting in Ghostbuster's II has spoken on the labour intensive process which...
www.sott.net www.sott.net
Click to expand...
Why only past blood and not future blood? Yet to be spilled over current enemies of the Empire (Russia, China, Iran,...).
 
The painting reminds me of the Portrait of Dorian Gray, also the hands are poorly done and corpse like.. Here is another compilation turned upside down. It looks like an an owl right in the middle between the hands. Funny how nothing of this is seen in the actual painting. It's common to see faces and shapes when these types of mirror images are made but it makes me wonder even so.

1715834928738.png

Here the portrait is compared to a Dracula image which reminded me of a video I saw about Charles preoccupation with his distant relative Vlad the Impaler. The face and hands are also prominent as in the Charles portrait.

1715835734634.png

I would bet Charles knew about his relative way before 1998.
"It’s also no secret that Prince Charles is very fond of Romania, especially of the Transylvania region. It was after his first visit to Transylvania in 1998 that he found out about his connection to Vlad the Impaler, a connection that he is apparently very proud of.
"Through the Prince of Wales Foundation, Prince Charles has done plenty of charity work in Transylvania, especially in the fields of sustainable development, conservation, and farming systems. Because of his strong involvement in the region, the mayor of the city of Alba Iulia has proposed to grant Prince Charles the title of Prince of Transylvania as recognition for being a prominent ambassador of the Transylvania region all over the world."
A great-great grandmother of King Charles' late mother Queen Elizabeth II, Hungarian Countess Klaudia Rhedey, was also born and raised in Transylvania in the 19th century
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Keit said:
Didn't see it being mentioned yet, but the first official portrait of King Charles III was revealed, and what a creepy portrait it is. Supposedly the butterfly is the symbol of transformation of King Charles into a monarch. Absolutely astonishing that this "bloody" picture that looks like guts were smeared all over it was allowed to be called "the first official portrait". A sign of the times and the last nail in the postmodern coffin.

View attachment 95918
Click to expand...
Bloody awful, I'd love to know what Charlie really thinks about it.
 
Keit said:
Didn't see it being mentioned yet, but the first official portrait of King Charles III was revealed, and what a creepy portrait it is. Supposedly the butterfly is the symbol of transformation of King Charles into a monarch. Absolutely astonishing that this "bloody" picture that looks like guts were smeared all over it was allowed to be called "the first official portrait". A sign of the times and the last nail in the postmodern coffin.

View attachment 95918
Click to expand...



Here's an analysis of the symbolism in this portrait.

The uniform fades into the blood red background but the hands remain prominent - signifying the fading of the monarchy from public view while the 'hand of power' remains. The butterfly as symbol of this transformation is also mentioned, rather than Charles as an individual it's the whole presentation of monarchy in the modern system.

The mirrored inverted image looks to this guy (and I agree) somewhat like Baphomet or a demonic form, symbolising the real source of power behind the elite. This guy claims the wide distribution of this image is to act as a form of spell, or ritual magic. I don't know about that, it's tempting to see it as a carefully, deliberately chosen impression. It is an official royal portrait, such things are surely not just a casual undertaking. However, like so much in the artistic world these days it's such total shite that I might be giving it more credit than is due.

It's also possible that such things are unintentionally manifested from the 'naughty side of the information field'.
 
Ben said:

Here's an analysis of the symbolism in this portrait.

The uniform fades into the blood red background but the hands remain prominent - signifying the fading of the monarchy from public view while the 'hand of power' remains. The butterfly as symbol of this transformation is also mentioned, rather than Charles as an individual it's the whole presentation of monarchy in the modern system.

The mirrored inverted image looks to this guy (and I agree) somewhat like Baphomet or a demonic form, symbolising the real source of power behind the elite. This guy claims the wide distribution of this image is to act as a form of spell, or ritual magic. I don't know about that, it's tempting to see it as a carefully, deliberately chosen impression. It is an official royal portrait, such things are surely not just a casual undertaking. However, like so much in the artistic world these days it's such total shite that I might be giving it more credit than is due.

It's also possible that such things are unintentionally manifested from the 'naughty side of the information field'.
Click to expand...
Very interesting. I was thinking yesterday about two movies by Polansky where he talked about the Devil, Rosemary's Baby and The Ninth Gate. The price he paid for his Rosemary film was high: an evil cult killed his wife and baby. This is not a subject to be toyed with, and I wonder if the painter of this King is conscious of what he has done and what price he will pay for it.
 
loreta said:
It is, as I see it, the portrait of someone who is in Hell. Where, evidently, he will go very soon.
Click to expand...

Is and WILL remain in hell, the UK monarchy and all it signifies at a local [and possibly global] level that is. Let's not forget that hell is very much an 'earhly' location and we 'remain' in one of our making if we so chose, even after having departed the body.

Here's my first impression when I saw it on Niall's tweet: "That looks like en eternal prison headshot to me; a msg of blood and gore for the unfortunate lineage that will follow"

As expanded above there's likely more extrapolation to be done but in broad terms it may be fairly straight forward. I wouldn't give them more credit than deserved in their [now] overtly satanistic msging.

*On another note, you pair this up with the [potentially] coreographed St Georges bloodied horses and 9/11 signalling of Big Ben and you get an interesting trail..
 
Ina said:
It is very much possible that the painter wanted to portray the Green King, and that’s what he probably did but from his dysfunctional chromatc perspective.
Click to expand...

I think somebody stole the green paint (now you know those lively grandchildren have a good time)... so the painter had to resort with using red colors instead. :umm: (Reminded me of a scene in "Death on the Nile (2022) i watched last night) - but in the movie it was the other way around; Somebody stole the painters crimson red color, so she used green instead.

It is really a ghastly portrait, and in my eyes beyond belief that something that ugly could be made into an official portrait. Yet, it paints things well...

"By their fruits..."
 
I stumbled on this, published by an independent investigative journalist from Quebec. She is very insightful regarding many subjects and went against the official narrative in 2020... And my first reaction to what she is pointing out was: "What the...!?"

https://www.facebook.com/eloveutsavoir/posts/pfbid02Yxyq3tqyxRQCJDY58L2HqWbcy666X8GZ1cvdCufXbr2AgP5jXJvNNR4MYQWowrahl
(i don't know how to disable the link from loading)

Here's the translation of her post:

"This is the dress Kate Middleton wore when she introduced her newborn to the crowd hours after giving birth on April 23, 2018.
Virtually identical to the dress worn by Mia Farrow in Rosemary's Baby.
Don't get on your high horse: this is just a coincidence.
Let's recall the premise of Polansky's film: Rosemary is made pregnant during a satanic ritual held by witches, so that she can give birth to the antichrist.
The choice of this cradle for Princess Charlotte's christening in 2015 is certainly also a coincidence.
And one should not think that the choice of a blood red color to present one's child to the world is carefully chosen.
So let's ignore the dress that Lady Diana wore immediately after giving birth to Prince Harry in 1983."

03.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom